<trackbot> Created ACTION-66
- Assign action to Josue to collate information on what spec
status is with respect to table@summary, research background on
rationale for retaining table@summary as a valid attribute [on
Michael(tm) Smith - due 2008-06-26].

<smedero> I can rename it...
if anyone has a suggestion?

<Joshue> just for tidy
housekeeping

<Joshue> @summary is very
useful

<hober> That principle 1 is a
good argument for <p> before/after <table>, not
@summary. That way all users benefit from the summary text!

<Joshue> If you can find
rational for dropping please forward to me

this seems to be a suggested renaming:
mechanism to provide a summary of high density information
easily discernible from a cursory visual glance

DanC: is a bunch of research
overkill? it seemed to me that the editor skipped the issue
because the title presumed a solution; a simple re-phrasing of
the issue title seems like a good next step

<Joshue> I have yet to see
solid rational for removing @summary from spec

<Joshue> I will mute

<Joshue> thanks

<smedero> My understanding is
that Hixie & Hyatt haven't "removed" or "dropped"
@summary... it just not in the spec at present. WHATWG's HTML 5
started with a clean slate and elements and attribtues were
added as research and test cases came in.

MS: issues is tracked under my
name due to technical limitations

DanC: estimated due date?

<oedipus> smedero, but isn't
HTML5 supposed to be "evolved from HTML 4.01" by charter?

<robburns> lost my skype
connection so I'm only on irc at the moment (trying to
reestablish now)

Joshue: it may take time to get
feedback from the WAI PF WG... how about 2 weeks

<Joshue> Say two weeks for me
to return on Issue 32 @summary

<Joshue> Ok

<oedipus> smedero, the
objection is that what was added to html4x for a very definite
reason, should either be retained or enhanced/improved, not
dropped

<Joshue> Thats it

<smedero> oedipus,
understood... just reiterating past statements from Hixie and
trying to help folks understand why it is not in the spec. It
was not intentionally removed as far as I can remember.

action-66?

<trackbot> ACTION-66 --
Michael(tm) Smith to assign action to Josue to collate
information on what spec status is with respect to
table@summary, research background on rationale for retaining
table@summary as a valid attribute -- due 2008-07-03 --
OPEN

issue 33

ISSUE-33 ping-referer

<Joshue> @summary is very
useful well supported. Am interested in looking forward at
other solutions but it must be based on a solid rational

JR: the offending text is no
longer there
... so it seems reasonable to close this issue, but I wasn't
sure about whether to do that myself

MS: closing issues in calls seems
good so that more than one person considers it and so we have a
record

<Joshue> The Google data
which cites that shows the summary attribute on ~2.5% of
tables. Note: The following information was collected by Google
in December 2005. Does not of itself mean that the attribute is
not useful. It means that it is underutilised and that is all.
[1]

<MikeSmith> Any objections to
closing this out?

<oedipus> no objection to
ping-refer

DanC: we can't make WG decisions
without async participation; seems easier to just withdraw the
issue

<oedipus> quoth hixie:
""Given the problem of conveying the meaning of tables to users
who are not able to directly see the tables, solutions (such as
headers="") have to be evaluated on the basis of whether or not
they address the problem better than not having the solution at
all""

<smedero> I can move certain
Tracker issues to Bugzilla if that's what you'd like to see
happen MikeSmith. Assign an action, email me directly, or ping
me on IRC...

smedero: OK, I look into it

anne: I'm not sure I agree with
oedipus statement that this should be closed
... Henri Sivonen has discussed this too, and I think it's on
Hixie's TODO list ...
... and perhaps we should wait until we have more
implementation experience ...